On 2011-03-02 at 10:45:00 [+0100], Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2011-03-02 at 00:04:11 [+0100], Truls Becken <truls.becken@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > In a thread back in january [1], I made a suggestion about letting > > /boot/system and /boot/common be both the package-fs mount point and > > at the same time hold a couple of "real" directories (packages, > > settings). I don't know if anybody noticed and considered it as an > > option back then, but it might solve some problems. > > When you suggested that, I didn't pick up on the notion of just making a > few folders "real" in that scenario. I apparently thought you were > suggesting a union-fs like > approach (which I find problematic because of the awkward "shadowing" > effect of written/copied files). > > But what you mentioned above can be implemented just by letting packagefs > automatically bind-mount the "packages" and "settings" folders. > > > As far as I can see, it has these (dis)advantages: > > > > + Good for backward compatibility > > + Simplifies the conversion of ported software to packages a lot. > > > + Short (sane) paths to e.g. /boot/system/apps > > + No need for B_SYSTEM_PACKAGES_CONTENTS > > - Confusing to have package contents mangled with actual folders > > - Can't use both package based and manually organized files, as in [2] > > Yep, we could solve the latter by explicitly providing an 'old-school' or > 'legacy' folder (or whatever else would be a good name for it). That could > both be used for > testing software during development and for installing software that isn't > available as hpkg. > > I personally find the approach of mixing packages with a set of writable > folders not very confusing, but quite appealing, actually :-) After all, > the settings folder has to > be populated from the hpkg-files anyway, so packagefs would have to write > outside of its container in the other (current) scenario. > > And when working on porting the development tools over to the current > structure, I did find the long paths quite awkward indeed ... > > Any opinions? Sounds interesting. It's a bit ugly that the packagefs volume would have to know directories from under where it is mounted, but I guess we can live with that. The boot loader should also be visible, I guess, or be moved to another directory ("boot"?) that also "shines through". > P.S.: I know I might be getting on people's nerves with my constant > questions about the folder structure, but these are important decisions and > changing them around at a > later stage (once software has been packaged) would be a lot of work. Indeed, and otherwise people would seriously get on your nerves when you're done and hadn't discussed things beforehand. :-P CU, Ingo